tv Washington Journal CSPAN August 9, 2012 7:00am-10:00am EDT
presidential candidate newt gingrich joins us at 8:30 eastern. and we will focus on aviation safety with william bond from the flight safety foundation. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] host: as the race for the why house continues, it is heating out that much more over this debate between harry reid and mitt romney over taxes. as you know, the senate majority leader has said he has heard that mitt romney has not paid taxes for a decade, and it has sparked a flurry of reaction from just about everywhere and articles. we thought we would give you a chance this thursday morning to react to this story out there. reid versus romney on tax accusations --
>> so, the word is out he has not paid any taxes for 10 years. let him prove he has paid taxes, because he hasn't. we already know from one parcel tax return desiccate but he has money been in bermuda, the cayman islands and a swiss bank account. not making that up. that is in a partial buzzing a bus. mitt romney makes more money in a single day than the average middle-class family makes in two years. >> harry reid really have to put up or shut up, all right? harry, who are your sources? let's have harry exploit who it is. by the why, harry, i understand what you're trying to do. you are trying to deflect the fact that jobs numbers are bad, that americans are out of work, in trying to throw anything up on the screen that will grab attention away from the fact that the policies of the why house have not worked to put america to work and the policies in the senate have not even got a budget in place for the years.
let me also say categorically, i have paid taxes every year, and a lot of taxes, a lot of taxes. so harry is simply wrong. that is why i am so anxious for him to give us the names of the people who have put this forward. host: as this debate continues, i want to fill in some of the blanks with daniel straus, a writer with "the hill." back to august 2 and all this began with harry reid. we heard him on the floor, but what is the motivation? guest: the motivation is basically just to keep the tax issue front and center and keep the american people's focus on mitt romney's tax records. democrats feel like this is a wedding topic, that they can paint romney as out of touch with your average american because -- someone who does not
pay very many taxes and interested in giving tax breaks to the wealthy at the cost of the middle-class. it is especially because president obama has said that a big part of his reelection platform will be taxes and portraying republicans as against giving tax breaks to middle-class voters and giving tax breaks to the wealthy. host: what about mitt romney's push back -- put up or shut up. if you got the information, put it out. how come it does not happen? guest: it might be that harry reid may not have a source. harry reid could be bluffing or not, but either way right now he is still at the advantage because it keeps the discussion on these taxes -- excuse me, on romney's taxes. romney is obviously trying to move the conversation away from
that -- call attention to something else, maybe to the fact that maybe harry reid is just making this up so they can talk about this at all. either way, though, it's still really helps harry reid. host: what has been the reaction on the hill? we know the senate was going out at the time he said this. how has the majority leader's colleagues reacted? and take it over to the republican side, to those supporting mitt romney? guest: on the democrats' side, a lot of democrats have lined up behind reid. as far as i know, there have not been any democrats that said he was bluffing or he should not be playing this sort of hardball. recently, now is a pelosi said reid's source was definitely real and that romney should release his tax returns. on the republican side, it has been equally harsh and equally
strongly stated. republicans have said that reid is bluffing, that he is lying, and that we really should not be playing this sort of game and just try to deflect from other topics. host: where does this all go? is there a next move or a next step on either side? how does it play out for the rest of the race? guest: it is hard to say. it could sooner or later be so troubles in -- troublesome or rum made that it does release a tax returns, which probably show that he has paid some taxes. i really doubt he has paid no taxes over 10 years. or, could continuously be -- if romney is so adamant about not
releasing his tax returns for the 10-year period. so, reid, though, i really don't see anything more happening on his side, to be honest. there is no way to the senate to the prove one way or the other source is what he says he is or was close to romney or knows a lot about how much in taxes he has paid. host: daniel strauss is a staff writer from "the hill." in addition to your phone calls, there are a couple of other ways to check in on this issue. tell us what you feel about the tax debate between harry reid and mitt romney. twitter -- c-spanwj is the handle --
a little bit more from harry reid. here is what he had to say on august 6. "this whole issue is not about me. mitt romney is his duty a little bit more from mitt romney on fox news recently. [video clip] >> the message i gave every reid was put up or shut up. i don't really believe he's got any kind of credible source. i don't know who gave in this line of reasoni, whether from the why house or the dnc or a staffer -- but he ought to say where it came from and we can find out whether the person has any credibility. i know they don't -- >> what about harry reid, his credibility? >> i think harry reid has lost
credibility on a lot of friends. visages one front that i think of a very unfortunate, said course. jim, buffalo, new york. independent line. caller: three quick points -- first of all, i don't understand -- and maybe somebody else and colin explain -- why is harry reid making these political statements on the floor of the senate? shouldn't the floor of the senate be politically neutral when it comes to campaigns like this? second of all, harry reid made the charge, so it is up to harry reid to prove it. i heard wasserman-shultz saying romney can clear it up. romney does not have to clear it up. harry reid made the charge and harry reid needs to prove it. and i hope the media holds into that. and finally, i just wanted to say that i wish that we pass a law that maybe all of them -- harry reid, szollosi, boehner, everyone has to release x number of years records so we can see
what everyone of them is going. host: cliff is on the line for republican from california. good or early morning. caller: good morning. the burden is on the accuser and not the accused. that is fundamental. what harry reid is doing is mccarthyism. he is counting on a complete media which so far been pretty cooperative. harry reid has become the story. and even more important, what is obama's role in it? there really has not released his own tax return. if the irs work to divulge what harry reid is saying on the senate floor it would be a felony. romney that a tax return is private -- harry reid cannot possibly know. the why house is behind it and everybody knows it. if obama thought he was when he would not be doing stuff like
this. he is saying his opponent has killed the wife of some guy with this cancer ad. never have we seen a sitting president is so small, nasty, and personal and this will really heard barack obama. host: new york city. ted is on a line for democrats. caller: thank you for c-span. i and barely hanging on to my status as in the middle class, but i have a window into the lives of the wealthy. especially being in new york city. they don't pay their fair share of taxes. i can guarantee you that mr. romney has not paid his fair share of taxes compared to the rest of us at middle-class and poor. it is just the most bizarre thing that this man doesn't show
his tax returns. it is unbelievable to me that, whether you are democrat or republican, that only in america can you get poor people and middle class people and middle- class poor people to be cheerleaders for tax breaks for multimillionaires and multi- , that an extra 100,000 -- i know people who could pay an extra $3 million a year in taxes and it wouldn't change their lives one iota of the way they live in this world and what they do in this world, and they are not job creators. they are really more like tax dodgers, and you really -- if you have a window into the lives of the which you would know what i am talking about. host: plenty more time for your calls and your tweets and e-
wilmington, north carolina. jack, independent caller. caller: good morning. always a pleasure to see you on there, by the way, sir. just a couple of things real quick. number one, if this whole conversation is not the greatest argument i have heard for true tax reform -- what we are hearing so much for these days, the holy grail is to lower the rates but broaden the base and do away with all of these crazy credits. i want to say that. i also wanted to say that -- if you really want to know what mitt romney is paying, all of his income is going to be on investments, it will be investment income. he is probably paying about 15%.
and using the current tax code structure, but probably try to get around all of that. but it is a great point what the writer you just had up there pointing out -- he is extremely charitable in his giving. out what to say that. the last thing i wanted to say is the best, if this is not the height of hypocrisy, coming from the democratic side. we have tim geithner, his tax records -- my goodness, he was trying to write off a $40,000 summer camp that his job goes to on his taxes. we know the trouble he had. not to mention, let's not forget tom daschle who was supposed to handle the entire affordable care at but had to about in shame because of his problems with taxes. to me, this is just the height of hypocrisy for the democrats to bring it up. thank you so much. host: we hear from judy on the
republican line. louisiana. caller: thank you so much for c- span. i tell you what, i couldn't agree more with the first caller and the caller before may. and i really hope that mitt romney uses this same strategy on obama to produce his college records. thank you so much. host: lots of twitter feedback on all of this this morning. eugene robinson writes about what he calls the war over tax returns. he asks -- who is this allegis source harry reid has. -- who is this a legitimate alleged source?
we have new jersey. maggie, a democrat. caller: i remember my father telling me that people will have nothing to hide, i nothing. it is very simple. if this presidential candidate once to prove that reid is an admirer, turn over your tax records. he did it when he was running for -- he handed over to senator mccain when he was running for president, it was over 20 years. strangely enough, after that,
the mccain camp tapped the twit -- as far as calling senator reid as a liar, this man has more positions than the kama sutra -- the right of this gentleman was talking about, he dressage his wife's horse. is such a -- and job creation? when he left as governor of massachusetts bay were 47th in the country as far as employment. one of those was a state that had just gotten hit by katrina. he is the most disingenuous human being i could imagine. the commercial that the president had nothing to do about the commercial about the
poor man who lost his job because of bain capital and a 75-year steel plant was shut down and the lost his job and health coverage -- this ad was put out by a super pac and not by the president but he never once said romney killed his wife, his wife died because he had no health insurance, she had cancer. and the real story is that president obama has given us the of affordable health care act and it will never happen to another human being. that is the upside and i was they would mention that. people, wakeup and start using critical thought. this man is nothing but an empty suit. to say -- to use the term mccarthyism, please. michelle obama -- michele bachmann is calling everybody communist and socialist and that we have a representative from florida who said the entire
black caucus were communists. learn the terms before use them. host: let me jump in and get some other viewpoints in. another twitter, and -- here is a facebook, -- the why house says senator harry reid speaks for himself -- the white house says senator harry reid speaks for himself. they heard from the why house press secretary kearney who says he speaks for herself -- why white house press secretary
all systems are corrupt. of course romney is hiding money in the cayman islands and all of the world and there is nothing new. the system is coming apart at the seams and it is time to shake things up and make a better world for our children and grandchildren. host: how to shake it up, caller? caller: just bring back in truth as the number one thing and morals and ethics into our government and think about our children and grandchildren. we made a mistake. we trust the people to stand and a guard our gates and they didn't do it. the people who have came through are the workers of america and made america what it is and what happened was we put up power in the hands of -- and i am not an occupier -- but in the hands of 1%. everybody knows that.
the money in the world is an 1% of the hands. host: james calling from illinois. thanks for your time. i want to get more viewpoints. a little more from "the hill." from joe lieberman, independent from connecticut. hamilton, montana. jim, republican. caller: good morning, c-span. thank you for your wonderful programming. i think it is pretty much a consensus, that everyone is saying that our president unfortunately cannot run on a record because it is a lousy record. it has nothing to show for it. he spent more money than president george washington to
herbert walker bush in three years. when democrats had both houses, they didn't even pass a budget. for the's been terrible country. it is really sad, because most of the people in this country are good, hard-working and honest people, and they are honest. and they figure their politicians are going to be but a lot of them are not. a lot of them are but a lot of them aren't. harry reid, i think he makes $160,000 a year but all of the years before he made a lot less money but he has 10 million-plus dollars in his account. in just a sad thing. and obamacare, page 107, there's a word, called -- if you google
it, it is a muslim system to cover non-muslim population -- it is a taxing of non-muslims in exchange for tolerating the present -- their presence. thinnitude. i see that plane he was runaround in was an air force jet that they painted off the american flag on the tail and put his insignia. i wished i could call and say good things about and because we were hoping for the best when we elected president obama. we were listening to on saying, come on, let's do it by the end
of being the total opposite. it is sad for so many people in the country, so many people lost so much and they worked so hard and honestly to get it. i do what mitt romney gets in. i think he is a very nice and honest man. and when you see that, well, the right wing and death squads in south america and into his campaign and is and that and this and that, that is really sad. host: i will let you go. appreciate you taking time to call in this morning as well. amidst all of this debate in the show, one viewer simply says -- [video clip] >> so, the word is out he has not paid any taxes for 10 years.
let him prove he has paid taxes, because he hasn't. we already know from one parcel tax return he gave as he has money hidden in bermuda, the cayman islands, and a swiss bank account. not making it up. that is in the partial year. mitt romney makes more money in a single day than the average middle-class family makes in two years. or more. >> harry reid really have to put up or shut up, all right? harry, who are your sources? let's have harry explained. by the why, harry, i understand what you're trying to do. you are trying to deflect the the fact that jobs numbers are bad, americans are out of work, and trying to throw anything on the screen that will grab attention away from the fact that the policies of the why house have not worked -- of the white house have not worked and the policies of the senate has not put a budget in place for three years. and categorically, i have paid taxes every year, and a lot of
taxes, a lot of taxes. so harry is simply wrong and that is why i am anxious for him to give us the names of the people who put this forward. host: dana lillbank writes in "the washington post." here is a twitter comment on all of this this morning. a call from new york. keith is an independent. caller: listening to the
previous independents -- they are attending independents but there really republicans and independents clothing. let me get to the topic at hand. as the basic question -- when a presidential candidate has a swiss bank accounts and cayman island bank accounts, what do people put the money and the countries or if not to avoid paying taxes? that is just a basic common sense. and the republicans talking about hypocrisy and making false accusation, look at what this crackpot michele bachmann makes about anthony weener -- weiner's wife. obama is a muslim and not one in
this country. it is ridiculous and the nonsense that comes out of the people will want romney to win. romney is a liar. lies about everything. he lies about his first name. he lies about everything. he runs away from his signature achievement as governor of massachusetts, the affordable -- you know, romneycare, you call it. one of his surrogates say the people lost their jobs from bain, they should have been in massachusetts because they could have had health care so it set off a firestorm on fox. i don't know how any republican who is not a millionaire, how can you both for these people and these people are in the pockets of the plutocrats. host: keep then independent. let's hear from a republican. john in berwick, pennsylvania. caller: yes, i find it
interesting that most of these -- both harry reid and rum made are very active in the mormon church -- and mitt romney are very active and the mormon short -- mormon church. if you read the history of the political parties, you will find that it was the republican party that was so opposed to the mormons. it was because the platform of the republican party that utah became one of the last states to enter the union. because the mormons had massacred hundreds of christians as they travel to california and because brigham young had more than 50 wives and more wives, even 12-year old wives' than osama bin laden dreamed of, that is why the republican party stood up against but mormon church. it was the republican party that was against the church.
host: tyrone from philadelphia -- can you turn the set down, please? are you there? weimer chance for tyrone. caller: i am sorry. yes. the president of the united states has to have the character, regardless whether it is barack obama or mitt romney. they go abroad, they have to have some dignity and decency. if we cannot ask about a basic question of did you pay your taxes -- did you pay at the rate you should pay it, why are you hiding but taxes, that becomes a character issue. romney's standing up there and facing the nation -- and barack obama. but the taxes out. if you have nothing to hide,
just put that taxes on the table because if you cannot basically stay behind your character, who are you? what are we as a nation? how do we talk to other countries? we are asking a basic question. host: more of the feedback, this via twitter -- in case you are wondering, politico has reported this week out of las vegas, saying the senate majority leader again deflected questions about releasing his tax return even as he continues to pound a demand for mr. romney to make more of his public. the piece goes on to say --
next collor, louisiana. j.t. on the independent line. caller: i don't feel like the tax situation is that big of a deal. nothing was mentioned about riches and wealth and so forth when john kerry was running and he is worth probably 100 times what mitt romney is worth. romney better get used to this. this is the chicago-style mafia thuggery coming out of the democrat party. it has been there for years and years and it is going to be the
same way until the end. host: shirley. newcastle, pennsylvania. republican. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i really do enjoy your program. what i wanted to say was -- you know, president obama is behind all of this. what he is trying to do is get the american people's mind off of the terrible economy, the unemployment, the obamacare, a holding fiasco, and all the bailouts and all of the things that have happened in the last three and a half years. he has two pups -- he has harry reid and nancy pelosi. they get up there and say what he can't say. and most of the people here in the united states realize that. they know what is going on. and i think president obama better try to get his act together if he wants -- he is
not going to win. we know he is not going to win. it is just too bad. but this is just out and out ludicrous. the other thing is -- everybody knows that nancy pelosi and harry reid certainly are not the brightest bulbs in the box. we will end up with that. thank you. host: indiana. kathy of the democratic line. caller: good morning. i and just like flabbergasted. justhe first -- i'm flabbergasted. in the first place, how can anybody in their right mind put faith and trust any person who is supposed to be the leader of the free world when he starts off lying through his teeth. he has done this for 20 years, romney. he has done it for over 20
years. he acts like he doesn't have to act out to anybody. but between him and the republicans in congress, they seem to have forgotten, they work for us. we are hiring them. as far as what the economy is, let's put the blame where it really belongs. john boehner, eric cantor, and the rest of the republicans in congress have done nothing, nothing. the president has worked his butt off since he has been elected trying to clean up the mess of the bush administration. john boehner and the republicans have done nothing to get jobs going for anybody, no one. they are sitting there on vacation again. if my husband worked as little
as of this congress did, my husband would be fired. and they still get our tax dollars, our tax dollars pay for their insurance, their purse. if there are any lawyers out there i want to file a lawsuit and sue the republicans in congress to get my money back because they certainly are not paying someone to do nothing -- we certainly are not paying someone to do nothing. host: the words from kathy in indiana. twitter now. here is an e-mail -- ron is calling for lancaster,
california. caller: good morning. here is my problem. i retired from the city of l.a. after 30 years. when i ran for city council here in lancaster, it was required that i show at least five years of my tax return. now, if that was just for city council in lancaster, california, you can't tell me that the guy running to be president of the united states and leader of the free world shows two years of income tax returns? that is ridiculous. here is the whole thing. we all have to realize that we pay for the congress. they get $175,000 a year to do exactly nothing because they haven't done anything to help the united states. i and not talking about helping barack obama getting reelected
-- i am not talking about how and barack obama getting reelected but what have they done for the people of the united states? host: delores, democrat from portland, oregon. caller: my comment is this. it is from the same line of the gentleman who just hung up is dating. everybody else has to jump through republican who. they've now got it where they have millions of people off the voting rolls because they don't have id, and these are the people they are trying to put into the slave market because they want the right to work everywhere so rich people in this country can use them. we have to keep track of what is going on. they are not just trying to take over in the united states. they are doing this all over the world. so, if we sit back -- and especially -- in white middle
class working men, you cannot get -- they will only work their pocketbooks, greed, and racism. the rest of us have to understand that it is not about me, it is about us. we sink and the fall together. and these people are all about power. you hear them, -- if you suggest that they should pay their fair share, then you are promoting class warfare. we need to wake up. if i have to show id to vote just because i am black then mitt romney has to show his tax return to rule the united states of america. host: twitter --
on facebook -- last couple of calls on all of this -- first from bowie, maryland. independent. caller: honestly, as an independent, i could care less how much taxes romney has paid. what i care about is policies. i am an avid c-span watcher. and i watched romney on several town halls. and he says absolutely nothing on policy. all he says is he is against obama. whatever obama has done, it
hasn't worked. as far as tax policy, that is the only detailed romney has given and it is very minimal. he says he wants to reduce the tax rate to 20%. if you reduce the tax rates to 20% when you have trillions and trillions of dollars of deficit and you are borrowing money from china and other places to pay your bills each month, where is the money going to come from if i am reducing everybody's tax rates? it does not make sense. it is a mathematical problem. we need a balanced budget and we need more revenue coming in -- both. neither party wants to work with each other. host: one last call. gilbert, a republican from here in washington, d.c. caller: hello. and this stuff about mitt romney's tax returns for being president is sort of nonsensical. the united states court --
constitution and article 1, -- article 2, section 1, clause 5 -- it states the conditions for being president. you must be a natural born citizen, at least 35 years old, and reside in the u.s. for 14 years. some people have argued about tradition about tax return. well, it has been tradition that all presidents are males and non-muslim -- it does not mean it females cannot be president or muslims cannot be present. this stuff about tax return gets away from constitutional issues which are very important in a time like this that we need to be aware of. and tax information is private. only the federal government and state and local governments have a right to it, and so far i have not heard anything from the irs about him not paying taxes. so, with harry reid's comments -- in this nation, you are innocent until proven guilty, so
he needs to back up his claim. mr. romney has to do nothing. and if people want to get off on the tangents it is fine, but none of this has to do with being president of the united states of america. host: appreciate everyone who called in the first 45 minutes. close to 30 people over all and lots of tweets and facebook comments. we are going to take a time out and our first guest will be the former u.s. congressman, tom mcmillen, who will talk about the new plan to reform congress developed by the bipartisan group that calls itself "no labels." later, newt gingrich, former speaker and former presidential candidate. lots of issues, including the 2012 provincial race. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]
>> i do not envy the drowsy harmony and of the republican of party. they squelched debate. we welcome it. they deny differences. we bridge in them. they are uniform, we are united. [applause] >> the choice is this year and not just between two different personalities or between two political parties. they are between two different visions of the future. two fundamentally different ways of governing. they are government of pessimism, fear, and limits, and hours as of hope, confidence, and growth. -- ours is hope, confidence, and
wood. >> this year what the republican and democratic conventions live on c-span starting monday, august 27. this weekend on american history tv -- >> we are selling george washington's personnel copy of the act of congress and we will start the building at $1,300,000. 1,500,000, 1,700,000 -- >> sunday at 7:00 p.m. eastern and pacific, from american artifacts, christie's auction of george washington that the acts of congress. along with the constitution, a draft of the bill of rights. the 1789 book includes washington's on hand written note. also, more from "the contenders," at hours. that looks for key figures --
looks at key figures who ran for president and lost but change the course of history. >> as it has been said -- in the worst of times, a great people must do the best of veins and let us do what. >> this week, former u.s. senator and lbj's vice president hubert humphrey. sunday 7:30 p.m. on american history to be this weekend. "washington journal" continues. host: at the table, tom mcmillen, " best founder of an organization called no label, a former u.s. congressman, democrat from maryland from back of the late-1980s and their early 1990's. good to have you back. we are talking about your proposal to reform congress. the first natural question is, what's wrong? guest: first of all, no labels is a grass roots citizen organization with over half a million citizens across the united states. every state and every
congressional district in -- where we -- we really focus on solutions to problems that face our nation, and particularly the structure of how congress operates. there is a lot of finger pointing and point scoring and the genesis of this is to come up with practical ideas that will make congress work better. host: finger-pointing -- take us back to your career, late-1980s and early 1990's up to the present day. has always been finger-pointing? when big bad or worse in your view? guest: there have always been point scoring and finger- pointing, but i think it has been exacerbated more recently. there's a lot of reasons for that, and a lot of them are addressed in the proposals no labels is putting forth. it was a different era. people spend more time to gather in the 1980's, 1990's, and before. they would travel to the other.
their families would live together here in washington or other kids go to school together. a lot of that has been eroded over time. host: what happened? why? guest: a lot has to do again what some of the reform proposals. you fly here as a member of congress on tuesday and fly out on thursday -- we are trying to get a five-day work week. but members here for a longer period of time so they could at least try to get to know each other. ford some bipartisan solutions, bipartisan leadership committee. as they did in the state of the union 2012 where 200 members crossed the aisle and sat with each other. some of my best friends were republicans and house and i don't know if it exists as much anymore. i think we need to address some of the core problems. host: we will walk through the platform of the group no labels as it tries to fix congress. we will remind you of the congressional approval rating.
this is a gallup poll from july. 60% full, approve of congress -- 16% of folks approved. former congressman, three terms, democrat from maryland, founder of the no labels and you may remember him as a former national basketball association player. let's get to the numbers on the bottom of the screen -- but tell us and little bit first about no labels. how big is this organization and how is it funded? guest: it is funded by private grants, private gifts. it has 500,000 citizens, grassroots members. people joined by going to the website nolabels.org, and it
really evolves from a feeling that we need to start dealing with solutions in this country as opposed to the dingo pointing -- to the finger- pointing and point scoring. it has been very successful. they have had a number of accomplishments. one of their pieces -- one of their peoples, no budget, no pay, has had a congressional hearing reviewing it. even the president of the united states, president obama, has even come out in favor of some of their ideas. i think it is a grass roots idea whose time has come. host: let's get to a couple of points on the platform. number one -- no budget, no pay. we know there is no budget. is it realistic? guest: ultimately the job of congress is to put forth a budget. really it has not been done. we have not had a real budget signed by the president's and i think bill clinton was the
president, 1997-1998. it is a fundamental responsibility of your government that you put forward a budget. the fault goes to both parties. the idea is if you don't have a budget by october 1, you don't get paid. that is how it works in the private sector. maybe we can take a lesson from them. host: you are also looking at an up or down vote on presidential appointment -- appointments. guest: something i felt strongly about. every time a president is elected it's taken years to get his keep appointments. 200 top positions are not filled right now. it is difficult for a president to get really moving. if we had a crisis during the beginning of an administration, a terrorist attack or something, we would be hard pressed. we can't even get the head of fema approved. the president submitted a person
to the senate for consent, if the up or down vote is not taken for 90 days than by default they would ultimately be appointed. this is a sound idea. the intent of our founders was not to a reasonably stop presidential appointees. the president has been elected and he ought to have the right to put his people in place. host: a couple more points -- filibuster reform. sun talked about quite a bit on the hill. also something called and powering the sensible the jury. tell us about these two points. guest: let's talk about the filibuster. the old movie, mr. smith goes to washington, where he stands up for hours and days and give a speech. that used to happen. 50 years -- 35 filibusters. very meaningful impact full piece of legislation. now that happens routinely. it has been used 100 times over the last two years. primarily to impede the idea you have to have a super majority,
60 members to do everything, that is not what the founders intended. they intended it for constitutional amendments, treaties, in peach min. not for every day -- motions to proceed or to close a matter. so, i think this would -- if you limited the filibuster and you kept it back to its original intent, which was to stand up and give a protest of legislation by an elongated debate, i think that was the original intent and that is what it should go back to. sensible majority is that -- oftentimes it is the focal to get a bill out of committee with a discharge petition because members don't want to put their name and but the leadership. this way, they can have a discharge petition signed, but it would be anonymously so members could actually -- it could actually deal with their real will of those members and could get the bill out of committee. then the member names would
become public. host: of lot more points to talk about. we want to get some calls for thomas mcmillen from this group, the co-founder of no labels. greenville, ohio. don on the independent line. caller: how are you? hello? guest: yes, i can hear you. caller: i hope they don't cut me off. the first one is term limits. this one has been brought up so much, but yet we have people sitting in there all their lives. come on, there is something wrong with that. campaign finance reform is the next one. if you have campaign finance reform, we wouldn't have to pay millions of dollars for a president to run for president. everybody out except the multimillionaires, as far as i am concerned.
and you talk a little bit about how much congress works. actually, they probably only work about 23 weeks out of a year, which is just totally ridiculous. another lady brought this up first before you wore on. -- you were on. the supreme court judges didn't help any thing when they pass the cpac thing, where the corporation is just turned in so much money towards reelection. i am an independent and i have been on both sides of the fence, republican and democratic, and i think really we should think about a third party. i would say this -- the green party and the american elect party should emerge together and should be, a lot stronger, if they would just merged together. basically they are on the same
page. guest: i totally agree with you on the campaign finance issue. i think citizens united, opening up corporate contributions to campaigns in this country was a terrible mistake. it unleashed a tremendous cascade of money into our campaigns. but that is a very, very difficult thing to do. we have not been successful in passing campaign finance reform. one other thing about these proposals as they are very easy to do. the leadership can do them in some cases, the membership and do them. you may need legislation in some cases. but this is a very durable agenda. campaign finance is a difficult one. the idea of having an independent party -- it is difficult in america because the party infrastructure is so strong, so an independent person running for president or for any office would not have that advantage. the final point -- listen, i think members of congress work
very hard, and i am not here to knock their effort or not their work ethic. they go back home alive. they are not in washington -- a lot of people say they are not in washington working. well, they are back home working and working the districts. the problem is, they are not in washington enough to build the new relationships that are so necessary to have the bipartisan spirit that we need. host: heather, republican from colorado. caller: i am a republican, or let's say i have been a republican. i seem now to be a rino and i seem to have no place in this party. when i do go to the republican party meetings, i seem to always get into trouble. i talk about things like separation of church and state and i have had people follow me all to my car, spitting on me. i have had people tell me if i come back they will slit my tires. and these are tea party people. i have never, ever seen the
republican party this radical before. my husband says, don't ever, ever go back. but i said no, i think we need to -- it has been a good party and i think we need to clean it up. maybe we just have to let this tea party burn itself out. i don't know what to do with it. i don't want to get on it. this tea party faction is so radical it just astounds me. i have been an accountant for much of my life. i wanted to call in in the previous segment. if people understood how little the wealthy pay, it would send shock waves through the american people. guest: the idea they use said the parties are becoming more polarized, they are, in the congress, certainly in the
house, and the reason for that is the gerrymandering going on with the parties shifted and the metal has been gutted. it is very tough. his state -- it is state-by- state. that is why gerrymandering is a very important thing. cleaning that up, going to an open process but california is doing in an open primary -- those things are taking time. this agenda could be enacted by the beginning of the next congress. host: we have talked about members coming to work. tell us more about making members come to work. there are constituents that district work to do, and there is also raising money. explain how the balance can be
created. guest: the proposal is the idea of having 35-day workweeks in a row where -- 3 5-day work weeks in a row. we talked about what went wrong with congress -- the airplane. the jet airliner. people are going back and forth. they are not here focusing on the people's business, and most importantly getting to know each other. former leadership in the 1980's, they would stay here on the weekends, clean cards. they would develop relationships. if your kids are going to school together, if you have a relationship, it is less likely you will take part in name-
calling. host: question time. we have seen this in london. how would this work? guest: i was a student in oxford and i would watch question time because i thought it was marvelous. the idea that you would have a forum where the president would come and answer questions in the body of the congress and you would invite cabinet members, in some cases, to participate, that actually happened in a way during the health-care debate. as you recall, president obama went to baltimore, to a republican retreat, and they had an interesting dialogue. the president asked question -- answered questions. paul ryan ask questions and
others did. that model would be helpful to engage the parties in a serious discussion of the issues. we have a presidential campaign going on and we do not often hear the issues being debated. setting up question time in congress would institutionally bring that forward. host: jack is on the line from atlanta. a democrat. caller: i wanted to ask, two years ago today, south saint louis, at a town hall meeting, a black man was beaten. i guess they picked him out of the crowd, and the tea party members in the crowd stopped them from killing him. where was al sharpton and jesse jackson on that, and did he not look like he could be the
president's son? i do not understand this. one-cited racism? batman was just selling trimmed gains. the kit -- that man was just selling trinkets. they kicked him out like a rabid dog. guest: when politics resorts to violence, it is very not healthy and it is a result of frustration in politics. as you pointed out, the popularity of members in congress is at an all-time low, and i think it is polarization. we are going further apart and we need to be in the solution business, as bill clinton said, not political gamesmanship. host: dozen no labels to actually take positions on these issues? guest: they take positions on
reform. if you go to their web site, nolabels.org, you will see the agenda. they have a white house agenda, reform in the congress -- their focus is making the structure of government work better. host: gene from ohio wants to know on twitter were you a conservative democrat? guest: i was a day democrat -- i was a democrat that the lead to limited to balance our budget and have a strong defense. i think i represent a lot of baby boomer politics. host: is no labels a free market does ellet organization that wants to suspend the constitution for a market-based government?
guest: there are a solution based organization that wants to focus on solutions instead of thunder-pointing. host: in "the huffington post" -- no labels packages far right ideas as those of the mainstream, and then taking right-wing clintonionain and republicans and packages them so they sound like they're reasonable people in the world of extremists on the left of the -- and the right. guest: i did not agree with that characterization, but let me give you one simple example. the comptroller general of the
united states is a non- partisan, independent office. it is supposed to be the auditing accountability office of the united states government. they are continually making statements and proclamations about our financial statements, but it just goes over the head of most people in the government. one of the proposal's no labels is making is have a non- partisan cfo to congress, have the president there, have members listened to a true statement of our financial position in this country. nobody is arguing that we need to cut social security or defense. what we need is a sensible solution, and the purse -- first place to start are the facts. we need to understand the situation we are in -- what our balance sheet looks like, what indebtedness looks like.
everybody has their own opinion on the hill, but there are some facts we need to deal which says daniel moynihan said. you might be entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to your facts. and host: independent caller, right. the district. good morning. caller: good morning. i believe strongly congress needs to balance the budget. when you take into account how radical some of these folks are, especially last august when we almost default, and a sense of entitlement to have, it is one to be an uphill battle. what are you doing to convince these people they need to balance the budget? guest: first of all, we need to
reform the budget process. the federal government, not like businesses or state governments, their budget is all together, so when you are looking at deficit on the federal level, you're looking at capital expenditures and operating expenditures. the idea of balancing your budget is the idea the need to have a budget moving towards balance. the united states could encourage indebtedness. that in itself is not the problem, but the problem is deficit's widening as we have seen. we have to reform the budget process. a skinny budget and by october 1. let's have cut -- let's get a budget by october 1. let's have congress work the way it is supposed to have worked. it is only bad in that investments are not going to protect the parts of your
economy. host: robert, memphis, tennessee. caller: i first saw you in "sports illustrated." university of maryland, is that correct? i wanted to mention the biggest and -- the bitter partisanship, starting with c-span. the next guest coming down is the grandfather of that attitude that has been going on since he found out that he could get on c-span late at night and preach to the choir and make acquire larger. that is the problem with politics right now. money is the problem, and the real problem is you do not hear people like trent lott, bob
dole, being polite and those sort of things on the senate floor. you certainly do not hear that from the house of representatives. that is just a food fight. i do not know how you get rid of it. maybe no labels is the answer. guest: the crux of your point is the whole system has become more politicized, more personal, less non-partisan. when i was a member of congress, one of the great trips i took was a trip to new york and next to me was sitting president richard nixon who was giving me advice as a young congressman and said one of the things you should do is travel a little bit. people paid when a member of congress travels, but they do -- people hate when a member of congress travels, but they do
learn what they need to know and they get to know colleagues on the other side. i made close friends of the republican side because i went to pakistan or afghanistan with a member of the other side. if you need to find institutional ways to bring members together, and no labels has proposed a bipartisan committee sitting together across the aisle in the state of the union as it did in 2012, and having them come to washington for a long stretches of time so that they can work together. there is always an unwritten rule -- incumbents, you would not criticize an incumbent in a campaign that was always the case. they could fight like hell, but when it came to the campaign, no one would run an ad against tip
o'neill. today, that is fairly routine, and one of the proposals no labels would make is let's not have this negative campaign amongst incumbents. host: the other point is the pledge. we have heard about pledges for texas and others, but you say no pledge but the old office. tell us what you a are thinking here -- what you are thinking here. guest: members have signed a no tax pledge. your only pledge should be to your old office. your pledges to the american people, not to some anti-tax organization or an organization that does not want entitlements cut. your job is to demonstrate your best judgment and represent your district. host: on twitter, are you
running a candidate? guest: know. if you look of their focus, and you go to their website, you will see that the idea here is to improve the governments of our country -- governance of our country, coming up with congressional reform. host:, other than coming on shows like this, were you doing with this list? have you presented to congress? have they responded? guest: a number of members have joined the organization and they have a convention with a lot of members of congress participating and citizen activists. it was an interesting discussion. this is one of the better discussions about our budget, where america is going and so forth. there will be a kickoff in new york, i think it is january 14,
and they did this about one year ago, but they will bring thousands of people together to move this agenda forward. host: e-mails, one reader wants campaigns to be done in person by their district to get away from the media aspect. all should be on a volunteer basis. no contact with lobbyists should be allowed by law. another viewer does not want solutions. once you have solved the problem, the issue is lost. candidates run on issues, not solutions. host:, joins us. caller: i will make it simple to understand why everybody is so polarized. the government is unable letter
of our problems and woes in this country. the country needs to get back to what our founding fathers built this republican -- republic light. i would like to know what the federal government's payroll is. if i were president, i would get rid of the department of agriculture. you do not need people to tell farmers how to farm and things like that. then i would get rid of the education department and send it back to the state. of these departments cost money and taxes to the american people, and you will not get a republican and a democrat to come to terms with each other until you take away all of their chess pieces. this is what the problem is. if you do not get rid of these things and bring the government back to where it was just to do the country's business and make sure we are saved from enemies
from within and without, you are never going to resolve this problem because there's too much bureaucratic mumbo jumbo in washington for the normal, average guy to understand. host: thank you, frank. guest: if you look at the budget process, it is easy, when you have 50% and you spend at 25%, -- 15%, and to spend 25%, you will have problems as far as the eye can see. the fastest growing part of the budget is entitlements, so you need a comprehensive reform package. that is what simpson-bowles try to do. in addition, you have $1 trillion in expenditures that people did write offs for. there is an agenda for our budget. i am very confident that it to put the right people in the
room, people like senator mark warner and others, you will come up with a plan that can pass the congress and get the country headed in the right direction. yes, it will cut some programs, the size of government, we will need sacrifices, but i think there is a solution there. the first thing we have to do is get tom gores working better, and that is really at the core -- get congress working better, and that is really at the core of what no labels is trying to do. host: we have 10 minutes left with thomas mcmillen, former democratic congressman from maryland and nba basketball player. ken, good morning. caller: i am calling about democrats and republicans. i am an independent. the parties are the same.
mitt romney raised $100 million last month. barack obama raised $75 million. mitt romney is only doing what they allow him to do with taxes. another thing on president obama. i'm a black man. every time a black person calls c-span the talk of barack obama. he never had the dignity to nominate a black man or a black woman to the supreme court. he feels he has the black vote. now he caters to the hispanic vote with the dream act and the homosexual vote with the same- sex marriage that he was against. i am confused. those of support obama, think about that. host: anything you want to respond to? guest: there is a lot there. the president wanted -- has tried to advance an agenda that gives every american the chance
to achieve the american dream, and that is across the board, of all colors. i do not necessarily agree with his comments. i think the president has made an effort to expand the economic pie. host: you talk of bipartisan seating, and a bipartisan leadership committee. what does that mean? guest: it used to be quite routine. tip o'neill and bob michaels would get together frequently, and even as you mentioned, trent lott, tom daschle, george mitchell -- there was more communication, if you will, between the leadership. the idea is to try to formalize or institutionalize a more periodic discussion between both sides of leadership, the house and senate, to try to reconcile differences. right now, you have two
different bodies orbiting and rarely coming together for constructive legislation. that is one of the proposals -- sit down, talk and try to work of art and a bipartisan basis, across the aisle. host: back to politics, one final point, no negative campaigns against the incumbent. that is something you would like to see. how reasonable is that these days? guest: it is probably difficult, but it used to be a number of rule that you did not go firing against your colleague. i could tell a story about that. when i was in congress i was in a redistricting situation, running against a republican, and i was in my new district running, and i saw this ad that jack kemp, a republican was going to come and campaign for my opponent. i sent him a notice and said
this is a violation of the jock caucus because he is a former football player and everything, and lo and behold he backed out of the appearance. it used to be that when you had a respect for your colleagues, you would not do the kinds of things just to win a race. if the human relationship was more important than the next campaign war victory and we need to get back to more of that. host: jackson, mississippi. bill, democrat. caller: it seems to be popular these days to point out the fact that when someone says the republican party has become very radical for someone to sit it is both sides, well, it is not really both sides. the republican party has become very radical. the democratic party is a very centrist party. if you look at the major policies the democratic party
has put forward, many of them are republican ideas, and the republicans these days respond by saying our primary objective is to defeat the president of the united states and make sure he is not reelected. i wish people would stop pretending everything is equal on both sides because they are not. if you look to the supreme court justices appointed by this president, they are not radical. they are not even liberal. they are moderate. on the republican side, you see the opposite happening. i wanted to point that out. guest: i respect your view. i will say that what we have seen happen, the digitally in the house, on the democratic side in the republican side, because of redistricting, most members are more fearful of a primary than a general election and that pushes them to the extreme both on the left and the right. the middle has really been gutted in the house of representatives, and the result of that is you have more
partisanship, bickering, and the like. when other things happening in california, by the way, what open primaries and the gerrymandering reform were no independent panel will carve the district of, it is -- where an independent panel will carve the district's up, it will be interesting to watch. host: california. republican for tom mcmillen. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to express the view that as a conservative, compromise always seems to result in the expansion of government, and our problem right now is we have way too much spending. so, what possibly could be the harm of, along the lines of what our families and businesses do,
of simply cutting spending by 1% for the next 10 years and solving the whole problem? guest: i agree with you. i think it is a spending and a revenue problem. if you tax at 15% of the gross domestic national product and you spend that 25%, you will have deficits for as long as the eye can see. the problem on the spending side is you have 80 million americans, baby boomers, getting old, coming into the entitlement program -- medicare, social security and medicaid on another level -- and you end up spending more money on health care and those things. if you looked at the causes of our deficits, it is not so much discretionary spending, although we need to do more there. it is the fact that we have this demographic spending, and
the only way we will solve this problem is get together with a sensible compromise like simpson-bowles or something. simpson-bowles had $4 trillion of cuts over 10 years pain on both sides, simplify the tax code and those kinds of things. host: we have time for one or two more calls. i wanted to touch on the olympics. tom mcmillen was a member of the 1972 team in basketball, and there was a controversial game against the soviets, and killings. what do you remember about the olympics in 1972? guest: it was a horrible day because of the israeli athletes taking -- taken hostage and murdered. five days later we had to play the soviet union for the championship. here we were, going into the game as a very young team against a very senior,
experienced russian team, and we come from behind and win the game, and the official comes out and forces the clock to be reset. finally, on the third time, the soviets prevailed, they win the game, and we are shocked. we refuse to this day to except the silver medal. i wrote an op-ed reason with them like they did in the 2002 olympics, the international olympic committee gave a bull gold medal out for the figure skaters because there was a referee problem. there was no official intrusion into our game so i have argued for a -- there was an official intrusion into our game, and i have argued for a dual gold medal, and i have taken that further and said we would give that to a russian orphanage.
the result of the game is we went to an appeal the day after the game that was 3-2. three east bloc nations voted to deny us the metal. it was a cold war outcome. they couldn't arm wrestle. we did noteed to play a basketball game -- they could have arm wrestled. they did not need to play basketball game. host: the most different thing about the olympics today from when you played? guest: security has forever changed because of the 1972 olympics. host: one last call, springfield, tenn., sheila, independent. caller: i think we need to get back to this no budget, no pay for congress. i think they are doing the best they can but we really need to
get across to them that they really need to work for their independent constituency. , the people voted for them. they need to consider their own home state. host: thanks for calling. guest: members were behind this. this is probably the most important job for congress. we need a congress that produces a budget. host: tom mcmillen, thanks a lot for your time this morning. coming up after this break, newt gingrich will be here in washington at the table to take your calls on the presidential race and lots of other issues. we will talk later with william voss and efforts to improve safety and the sky prefers an update from cspan radey of.
>> -- radio. days after the syrian prime minister defected yesterday, the syrian state run news agency says the president asad has appointed a new minister who previously held the post of secretary general from 2000-2004 and was appointed head of the doctor syndicate in 2010. 50 years after the u.s. has begun cleaning up what is left of agent orange it dropped over vietnam jungles during the war, the cleanup is to remove the cancer-causing dioxin's left behind by the defoliants which was used to destroy enemy cover. "the new york times"jeremy peters has not article about newt gingrich speaking at the republican national convention
but the mitt romney campaign will have them teach a series of workshops they have nicknamed " newt university." those of some of the latest headlines on cspan radio. >> the library of congress has books that shaped america, 88 books selected by the library for their employers on america and american culture. here's a brief interview about the exhibit and how you can join in an online chat about the libraries list and which books you think should be included. >> we call a books that saved america -- that shaped america instead of other words like changed america. they had an impact on american society. so many books have had a profound influence on american culture and society and the very essence of what america is. the earliest book is actually
ben franklin's book on electricity and the thomas paine book that sparked or shaped the american revolution. novels are a critical part of american culture. many of them identify who we were becoming more the aspirations we head. others told about experiences that we have had usually as americans. we thought it was very important to look at non-fiction and books that be there were self-help or overcame barriers of certain kinds. books showed america as an innovative country and used the stories to inspire building the new frontier and that could be literally or figuratively. >> if you would like to participate in on-line discussion with the assistant librarian -- associate
librarian, we would like to hear from you. email us at email@example.com. "washington journal" continues. host: newt gingrich is here now. your position on welfare and you are all over the place today. "usa today" says mitt romney is focusing on the welfare law. it says you're calling president 0, the anti-clinton. guest: i said there was a real gamble on the obama part. clinton announced a base -- in a state of the union that big government was over and obama is creating it. clinton created the leadership council and obama has taken the party to the left.
he vetoed welfare reform twice and we finally worked it out. it is the most important social conservative reform in our lifetime. obama gutted the welfare provision by issuing a regulation. which is illegal by the way. clinton and i worked at a balanced budget and in a bipartisan way, that led to four surpluses. obama has led to the largest deficits in history. because of welfare reform and economic growth, the number of children in poverty dropped for the most in the last two years of the clinton administration. on almost every major zone, clinton is in one world and obama is in another. >host:
what have you been saying? guest: obama in 1996 as a senator opposed work requirements. this substantial of liberal democrats bitterly opposed this. section 407 is very direct. no waiver is legal. the reason is we wanted to force the state social service bureaucrats to recognize that this was a major shift back to the work ethic and that had an obligation to apply the work ethic to the poor. president obama has gone in and issued proposed regulation on health and human services which congress has said that you
cannot waiver. . if they don't intend to waive the work requirement, what are they doing it? they say they are leaping to conclusions and i think it is nonsense. it is clear that people who are left wing the don't require work requirements are now working for the same thing. host: newt gingrich will be with us for about 45 minutes and take your calls. we want to get back to the presidential race itself. lots have been written about the mitt romney campaign advertisement titled the rise and fall of welfare reform and that sparked discussion this week and we will take a look. [video clip] >> this provides opportunity and demanding responsibility. this bill will help people go to
work so they can stop trying a welfare check and start drawing a paycheck. >> why should an able-bodied person receiving welfare benefits not be required to work? >> i believe it isn't an important change. yes, people should work. hardworking american citizens should not required to carry people. >> i introduced the concept of thefair in 1996. i was lambasted for mandatory work for anyone receiving welfare. >> i am a huge supporter of a federal plan that was signed in 1996. >> i would not probably have supported the federal bill. >> the obama administration
quietly issued waivers to welfare block. e law. host: you have been pressed on this issue. where are you with this issue? guest: that came out of a conversation that was pretty convoluted. have they waved a work requirement? no, it has only been around since july 12. do i believe they will? absolutely. the advertisement sets of what has not yet happened but you have to ask yourself why they would waive -- why would they put in place a waiver? the particular reporter was determined to get me to say that it had not happened yet but it will happen if he gets reelected
because otherwise, why would be set up? host: lots of other issues to go through but let's get the viewers involved. newark, delaware, on the democratic line. caller: i have a comment. you are throwing peanuts to the poor man because he cannot get a job and just criticizing. this is what i want to set to the republicans. love your sells more than you hate the president. he has your interest at heart. if mitt romney gets in, the republicans will be like they were in the great depression. thank you so very much. host: a reaction? guest: she is obviously a hard- core democrats. when i was speaker we worked in
a bipartisan way with bill clinton. the largest reduction in children in poverty in american history is the two years after we passed a law. i think we can work together to get things done better good that i think president obama is much too far to the left and compared to president clinton, he is much too partisan. host: this is from "the new york times" -- what do you think of mitt romney at this point? guest: i think he is a smart, hard-working guy with great management capabilities who has put together a very effective campaign and won the nomination and did so in a real fight and i was in the middle of it.
i also think " the new york times" is just plain wrong. why would you issue a proposed waiver, something it that is illegal, if you're not going to waver? there is a desperate desire to protect president obama. "the new york times" editorial board is on the left and they want to protect president obama. it is clear what they're trying to do. robert rector is probably the best informed person on welfare reform in the country. he said the minute they did this, this will gut the requirement. host: williamsburg, virginia, republican, go ahead. caller: i hope you remember this -- about four years ago on the coldest morning in new york, i handed you a package of my small business, virginians for
education, which is a mobil facility -- which is a mobile facility of children exercising. i have been to over 1000 schools in the state of virginia and i have had -- and the reason why i do it is because the parents pay for me to come. i am paid by the parents of the children who pay my fee which is all my customers are repeat. in respect to the pre-k health is anything that is innovative and reducing costs to improve service is exactly what they're fighting against. i operate a program that costs $100 per hour and i can take as many as 90 children per hour with them measured out come immediately. and improve morale and help. sadly, that has meant nothing to republican or democrat leadership here in the state.
it does not make a difference what local community i am in. i am battling a school board, local honors, the local school groups, teachers associations. the last thing they wanted someone to come in and out for them, out think then, and give the best facilities for the children so they will have a job. guest: i think that is a very powerful point. i have talked to a number of innovative educational technology companies. one had a brilliant program for learning how to read particularly for people who needed remedial reading. the resistance of the education bureaucracy to new ideas and to anything which reduces the work load and reduces the union membership and reduce payrolls has been very resistant to the kind of modernization which happens in most of the rest of
american society. host: back to presidential politics -- what you make of the debate between harry reid and mitt romney? guest: harry reid isn't clearly not telling the truth. the senate majority leader should have some measure of respect. if you check mitt romney, he first released financial documents when he first ran for governor in 1992. a great deal of information is available there is nothing he will do that will satisfy president clinton or axelrod or the democrats who are on a mission. if you have 8.3% unemployment as a president, you would want any other issue other than the economy. mitt romney is focusing on welfare and let the democrats talk about what they want to. host: we're waiting on a vice-
presidential announcement by mitt romney. who should be the next vice- president? guest: it is a very personal choice. the four criteria for vice- president is they need to be capable to be president because it is not a ceremonial job. can the person of when the election? can they be as capable as mitt romney? can they work with the senate? are the two compatible? what you saw in 1992 that surprised many of us is bill clinton and al gore had the right chemistry. in 2000, dick cheney brought george w. bush a sense of comfort about national security that really became an important part of the chemistry.
mitt romney have to decide if they fit this objective criteria and is mitt romney comfortable with him. he's got some great choices. senator rob portman of ohio would be a possibility and governor bob mcdonnell of virginia and congressman paul ryan and center mark rubio in florida and senator kelly ayotte and there are a number of first- rate choice as he could pick from. i'm looking forward to the announcement. host: is there one you were thrilled about? guest: any one of those would be exciting. caller: good morning, as far as welfare is concerned in america, we're the richest country and the world. we cannot have 22 million children going to bed hungry at night because they are living in
poverty. i heard you speak a few years ago at a college. you were being paid $60,000 an hour. you told these kids in college that the rich do not pay taxes, they hire attorneys and they go around the irs. were you lying or telling the truth? we know you were telling the truth. the rich don't pay taxes, they collect taxes. i heard you say that you would fire all the union janitors because they are making $60,000 per year which is too much. you would hire children to do their work and that you would appoint one master janitor.
what is this master's name, simon legree dec? guest: the wealthy pay much more taxes. my point was if you raise the marginal rates to a high number like before ronald reagan, they just hired more cpa's and lawyers and find ways to avoid taxes. that is a natural edge human reaction. on the janitor issue, my younger daughter worked as a janitor and a first baptist church in georgia. it was her first job and she went in and clean the church and the restaurant and did everything and she got paid. she was glad she had the job. she was in junior high and they -- it gave her some money to go to things and taught her healthy habits. you have to show up. both of my children were all the way through high school and
college and the boat learned terrific lessons. they have their own businesses and there were very successful. i talk to people who are extraordinarily successful who started at 14 years of age and got paid for it. my point was if you could have an opportunity and people who did exactly what i described, you have an opportunity in the poorest neighborhoods in america to pay kids to do some work or they work in the school library or the cafeteria, they help mop the floors, it is not hard and heavy work. you have eighth and ninth and 10th graders who want to earn money. i want to find creative new ways to tie them back to their schools and give them a chance to earn some money and give them the dignity of work rather than dependency. host: virginia, democrat, hello. caller: there is presently 56
million people on social security. you all want to redo it. there is a little over 13 million retirees. 9 million are disabled kids on social security. 33 million disabled that are not retirement age. over the years, our governments has borrowed $3 trillion from social security. i feel it was wrong with the program is that our government has turned it into a welfare program. if we only had retirees on it now, there would not be a problem. this time when people have kids start taking responsibility for being parents. and taking care of their kids. guest: i think a lot of what she
said makes it a lot of sense. we should have a retirement plan which is the way social security was designed to be. it should be fully funded. everybody on the republican side believes that everybody retire should have a guarantee and younger people should be offered the opportunity to invest in the personal social security savings accounts which has been tried since 1980 in galveston, texas and has given people two or three times bigger retirement. i think she brought a lot of common sense to the conversation. host: here is a suite -- --tweet -- guest: i think the federal reserve should be audited. i think they should be held accountable. i think we should understand how much power the chairman, mr.
bernanke has and i think the documents for 2008, 2009, 2010 should be investigated by the congress. in a free society, you cannot have the amount of power and money invested in one person that chairman bernanke has had. we need to have a much more accountable and much more reformed federal reserve. i think we should go back to a stable dollar and we should try to transition to having a much harder currency closer to gold than to the current inflationary paper we have. host: how significant is the debt right now that guest: in the long run, it becomes very significant. two things have been happening and nobody could predict. one is that inflation is two things -- how much money is available and how fast is it
being spent. in the last three years, ben bernanke has dramatically suspended the supply of money but it has not lead to inflation because it is being spent so slowly that the velocity has collapsed. there is a lot of paper floating out there. the second thing to remember is that when you were in this kind of environment, because we are still the largest economy in the world and because we still have more mobile ruled law than any other country, people actually come to the u.s. to invest their money when they are scared. counterpressure is on the u.s. bonds pared the danger is the morning people have a are tentative and the morning inflation starts, if you have $17 trillion you're paying interest on, you'll pay enormous percentage of your budget. you'll pay more in your lifetime
for interest on the debt and you will pay for national security. that is a fairly dangerous concept. those give this difficult economic choices later on. host: that reminds me of various vice-presidential possibilities who are experts like rob portman. speak to him and his ability to help the problems. guest: if you're looking for expertise, the two people know the most are rob portman and paul ryan. he has been office of the management budget and he is experience. paul ryan is probably the brightest person ever to chair the budget committee. the two of them are really powerful. with rob portman, he comes in a very important state in ohio. i think paul ryan will help carry wisconsin so either one of them is an asset to win the
election. host: a republican -- caller: aboutj.c. watt for vice president? the media and narrative is the republicans don't want to compromise on taxes. the system is already effectively progress of according to the cbo. tax reform would result in more revenues than rate increases. the democrats had 60 in the senate in 2009 on like the republicans from 2002-2006 and who had an average of only 52. the democrats chose not to pass tax reform. only getting $40 billion of tax increases would not reduce the deficit because they would redirect that to more spending. guest: j.c. watts is a terrific
person, a great american, a football player, a terrific preacher, has a great private sector business today. he is somebody you'd want to think about as a great talent but i don't think he would think of himself read that as being in the running for the vice- presidential nomination. this country has overspent, it is not under text and i am deeply opposed to giving washington any more money. i would put washington on a diet and get them to shrink. i don't want to feed washington. host: back to the future -- there is one more "in"new york to piece - featured here are donald trump,
michelle bachmann, ron paul at yourself. it says here that the romney campaign will have workshops at the convention nicknamed newt university. guest: i had a conversation with the mitt romney people after we suspended our campaign. i said started in 1984, i have talked a series of workshops usually in the morning and i have found that there activists from all over the country who are excited to come and the news media doesn't cover the time of day much. at the last convention, we did a workshop on american solutions on school choice and was shocked everybody because we have the rev. al sharpton who came to the
workshop at republican convention and we have governor pawlenty whwho was a real leader. it was very well attended and covered by cspan and other media. people have all been said that i am an idea person. i teaching is my background. we're working out the details and will announce the details in the next day or two in tampa. these would be very issue oriented but less scripted than the evenings. the evenings are very controlled. this is a chance to learn about this and we will put it on line and make available to everybody in the country and it will be a chance to talk about in debt issues in the way you could not. i would rather do that than have a brief speech in the evening and i am a very comfortable with the chance to work the party. i have been a republican
activist since august of 1958. i have had a very long experience of doing these things and i am looking forward to seeing many tampa is like a giant family reunion. host: there is a new york times headline -- guest: i don't think it is any higher than normal. what you have is a party in transition, a new generation coming along. you have marco rubios, and richard murdock and ted cruz from texas. this is a new generation. are aggressive and intense and exciting. frankly, we can all identify with them. this is the new blood, the new enthusiasm. you will have tension. a governing majority party will
be big enough. a stable majority is about 60%, which is 180 million people. you will have a lot of tension at a family reunion. host: one more question about your campaign. you have had a couple months to reflect. are there one or two things that if you had done them differently might have made a difference? guest: calista and i talk about a fair amount. she would say figuring out how early to raise much more money was a big factor. we got outspent particularly in florida. also, i made mistakes in trying to work with traditional consultants. i was never a traditional candidate. i am a candidate of ideas and solutions. we had an four-month detour at
the beginning of the campaign gets us back badly. i am not blaming the consultants. they did what they do, but it is just not how i have operated for my whole career. host: now from north carolina, an independent on the line. caller: it is an honor and pleasure, sir. guest: good to talk to you. caller: a corporation is a business where individuals and an american dream. to look at obama, i am never to be more than a small business owner. why should i be vilified and hated for my success? on taxes, when they raise taxes
on the people's we get our commodities from like oil, gas, electricity, food, you might get a tax break, but we are just making it through. i would like to hear your a rebuttal. guest: the speech that the president gave on you did not build it, i have been watching the olympics. if you ask michael phelps, you have to say to yourself, he put a lot of himself into being competitive. you look at the terrific people we have had in sport after sport. if you want beach volleyball for the women yesterday winning their third gold medal, i'm sure they had great coaches and
family support and neighbors at being positive, but those two women went on the beach and practiced and practiced. we ought to recognize and encourage the next steve jobs, the next bill gates. but it is not just in business. we want to encourage them working for the red cross. i have a granddaughter taking ballet and a grandson who plays the bass. i want to encourage them in music if that is their future. we want americans to have a work ethic president. obama was undermining precisely that talent. mentioned taxes, you raise taxes on products, they become more expensive and scarcer. we have an american energy opportunity to become independent from the middle east. the north american continent to be independent in energy production before the end of the decade. that's not going to happen with
obama. host: springfield, missouri, chris, a democrat. caller: as i watched the republican debates, i noticed all of you stood on the stage and huff and puff about the affordable care act. it's very important to understand everyone of view it were all receiving subsidized health care and pensions for my taxes. according to the office of personnel management, this program will begin its second season in 2008 after a highly successful first year of operation which saw 750,000 employees signed up for dental. program also kept its costs down only 2% for the second consecutive year. i find it very strange that all of you politicians, congress
included, all put down health care that is subsidize or paid for by taxes and yet you are willing to push us off and say that we don't deserve this kind of health care, we don't deserve this kind of program when the fact that you all congress' health care to provide a template for the affordable care act. and why is romney not tearing apart your programs in the congress, such as you receive lifetime health care or lifetime pensions? -- why is wanpaul ryan not tearg apart your programs? guest: you raised some interesting points, but they are some ways very misleading. it's much closer to a defined
contribution plan rather than a defined benefit plan than it used to be. and lots of companies people can earn a long-term benefit. when they get older, members of congress are on medicare just like everybody else. that part of it is not accurate. the key difference is no cooperation, including federal employees, is big enough to control medicine in america. the federal employees health benefit act is a good model to think about how to have a large number of choices. putting power in the hands of bureaucrats so that they start making decisions. there's a recent argument about whether or not you should have a text to amend
treatment for prostate cancer. there was no cancer expert or prostate expert on the panel. it would lead to the premature death of 10theto 15% of the men get prostate cancer. you have the right and your doctor has the right to practice appropriateness and for you. i want to find ways to maximize the number of people who have health insurance. medic aid, not many people would voluntarily get on medicaid. study is indicate that the uninsured have better health outcomes than the people on medicaid, because medicaid tends to be so badly run. host: touching on national security, this viewer wants to know exactly what i does nation- security mean to you? guest: it means that my grandchildren, 12 and 11, should be able to wake up every
morning feeling safe and free and that their government has taken steps to preserve their safety and their freedom. whether that means stopping the mexican drug cartels or stopping radical islamists, or developing a deterrent against a rising chinese military, that their government has said this is what we need to do to keep americans safe. host: reducing things going with iran? guest: it is a mess. this administration has been very weak and it is dangerous. i wrote a piece on radical islamists. we need to understand how dangerous the whole middle east is becoming. it was reported in the morning news yesterday the egyptians are bombing their own territory on the sinai peninsula. .hat should sober people uppe
if the egyptians cannot control their own territory, you have a war under way in syria and iraq and afghanistan. large parts of pakistan out of control. libya is very unstable. need to understand how dangerous the world is. iran is a piece of that danger, but not the only danger. host: the lead editorial in the washington post talks about syria -- should there be intervention? guest: >> we should be helping to actively arm and train the independence forces to defeat the government and we should send clear signals that his government will not survive. i think it will break under that kind of pressure. host: you have made a good bit of news this week.
in this story -- guest: it's not about an individual person, not making allegations about any one person. five members of congress wrote a series of letters to inspectors general, states, the promise of common security, just as, etc., and said that we want an assessment of the influence of the muslim brotherhood in your department. i think that is totally appropriate. the muslim brotherhood is a very dangerous organization. tony blair was quoted last week as saying that one of the things he has concluded is that since 9/11 we have greatly underestimated the desire of
radical islamists to achieve supremacy, not toleration. he went on to say that the west is asleep. i think these letters were an effort to wake us up. it's fascinating how intensely emotional some of the reaction to the letters have been. i would suggest we asked americans have the right to know whether or not people want to replace our civilization have significant influence in the obama administration. host: now from florida, frank is a republican. caller: hi, mr. speaker. a couple questions. on the budget, a few weeks ago the president was claiming to be lowest spending president in 40 years, which i found misleading. nobody in the media seemed to explain the budgeting process and how misleading that is, based on the date the fiscal
year ends and how the first nine months of his presidency, the money that he and nancy pelosi are spending and the stimulus and the 400 in dollar omnibus bill all get blamed on. president on and =-=-- blamed on president bush. p moneythe tar accounted for in that scenario? when that money is paid back, where does that go into the obama numbers? guest: you raised a question i cannot answer. i don't know. but it's a good question about the way in which we keep score. the loans under bush could have been counted as spending by bush and the pavement under obama could count as revenues, so it
could have a perverse effect. i don't know that it's true and i don't want to mislead our viewers. now you have given me an assignment. i will look into it later on today and i will probably e-mail paul ryan and asked his advice on that. that's worth looking at. imagine it your children convince you they have a baseline of getting a $2 per week increase in their allowance and they deserve and a dollar increase to be even. you say i have not got a pay raise, how about i give you $2 and they say why are you cutting me $6? i am doing this without a blackboard, so i hope that our viewers can follow me. this is what i want a complete reform and the congressional
budget office, which is an engine of socialism and big government. it has models that say if you don't increase by this amount, it is a cuts even if it is an increase. there's no family or small business in america that has a baseline budget like that. normally if you spent $105 last year and more this year, that's an increase. cut.hey're saying it is a that's why washington is hard to govern. performing the cbo is. a significant is if republicans get control of the senate, i hope they will sit down with house republicans and insist on a director dedicated fundamentally overhauling and changing the congressional budget office. host: what about the current congress and the atmosphere? guest: the speaker has a hard
job. they have a president who is different from bill clinton. clinton had been governor of arkansas and he knew that you had to work with the legislature. that's how the constitutional system works. even when bill and i were fighting, we knew that we had to talk to each other. i think obama is the classic college professor. it's his way or no way. i admire john boehner keeping his temper. you have harry reid over here. his dishonesty is breathtaking. he has not produced a single person to substantiate. you have a majority leader in the senate you cannot work with and a president you cannot work with. they have been trying to buy their time until the election in hopes of getting a president who will be bipartisan and in hopes of having a senate willing to sit down and work. host: joel is on a line from
wisconsin. caller: i wish you were the classic college professor. the country would be in much better shape. i don't know if you are the most intelligent guy in the room, but you articulate the most youpoints. i want to stop about our president. i would really like someone to call this guy on what he is. he is a panderer in chief. giving women free contraceptives. hispanics, amnesty. voter registration will now come with your welfare check as well as your comments on the relaxing of the welfare to work program. he changed his stance on gay marriage. environmentalists get the keystone pipeline cut off.
the. unions get the the. get the automobile bailout. those are drops in the bucket of taxpayer money that the president spends in order to cater to these groups. then you have the big banks. they get these bailouts and tarp. the average person on the street who has no retirement, no stocks, no investments -- i have not worked in years, in the residential construction business. i don't have to tell you how bad that is. i'm in madison, wisconsin, but i'm from chicago. some of the stuff he does around congress by presidential -- mayor daley in the middle of the
night tore up a runway in chicago because he had just moved from a deteriorating neighborhood and moved to the of these fancyone condominiums. the airports that were taken off and landing were flying by his window. he and his wife decided that was not the lakefront view they wanted. host: let's get a reaction. guest: it's good to hear from someone in wisconsin. callista and i, she is from wisconsin and my son lives in sheboygan. you guys have a great leader. governor thompson is a key leader. let's be clear. barack obama is our president. we want to replace him.
we can have arguments. this is one of the responsibilities that he must bear, that there is an institutional presidency that he weakens when he violates the law when it comes to welfare reform. the president should be the number-one upholder of the rule of law. in the law a lot of his behavior and that entire team can be better understood if you understand chicago politics. there's a certain amount of that kind of approach, the run over your opponent model, which is not appropriate for the office of president. it does not work nationally. this is too big and complicated a country for that type of politics. host: a number of americans filing for jobless benefits fell -- what do you think about the future? of the job future guest: a
number of people blogger in the workforce, this has been the biggest decline in work-force participation since world war ii. the only reason we are not at 13% or 15% unemployment is the number of people who have quit looking. i don't think that's a good sign. i don't see any circumstance under which an obama second term leads to a better economy. there's no evidence that there's anything he would change that would lead to a better economy. people should ask themselves do you want to be stuck at 8% or 9% unemployment and a declining work force or do you want to try new policies and approaches? host: annie is a democrat in new york. caller: republicans confound me. it would be a better economy is
if democrats got a majority back in the senate so that things could get past once again. the republicans are just blocking everything. they are filibustering every single thing that this president has tried to pass. that's why nothing is getting done in congress. how do you square calling mitt romn a liar on face the nation and supporting him now? and with this new welfare to work performed thing, mitt romney was one of the governors that requested it. guest: a couple things. those are good questions. first, for the first years of the obama administration, nothing got blocked. the past and $800 billion stimulus and past obamacare, big increases in spending. he promised unemployment would
not go above 8%, but it has not gone down below 8%. his first cw years have been a failure. they set us on the wrong track, doing the wrong things. romney did not asked, as governor, for these kind of changes. he worked to strengthen the welfare requirements of massachusetts. he sent that letter along with other governors to consider an increase in the work requirement from 50% to 70%, and he supported the increase in the work requirement, the exact opposite of the obama position. host: you have been quoted as saying they need to senator up here who knows what he is doing. so how much more campaigning will you be doing up there? guest: if tommy gets nominated, i want to help him go and when the general.
he helped us with welfare reform, where he was a pioneer. he was a pioneer in school choice, working with democrats in milwaukee. he was a remarkable leader in balancing the budget and cutting taxes and creating jobs. he was a very effective secretary of health and human services. i have great respect for governor thompson and he would be a very effective u.s. senator. host: he is a former governor. why is it such a tough race right now for him? guest: >> is being outspent by a hedge fund multi millionaire who has not been in the state 24 years. people in wisconsin are tired of politics. they've been through the recall, the election, scott walker's survival, and scott walker is doing a great job. this is the first time they have had an august primary. there's a question about it who
is going to turn out. tommy is a great campaigner. calista and i had a great morning with him and crisscrossing the state. host: newt gingrich, member of the house from georgia. thanks for your time. guest: glad to be here. host: our next guest will be williams voss, looking at the faa and safety efforts. and what fliers should be concerned about based on news lately. in the meantime, a little more news from c-span radio. >> it's 9:25 a.m. eastern. republican presidential candidate mitt romney in remarks earlier on radio is charging that president obama has gone beyond the bounds of acceptable campaign speech with a tv ads linking him to a woman's death
from cancer. mr. romney says, "i don't know what happened to a campaign of hope and change. i thought he was a new kind of politician." he went on to say obama supporters have been airing factually incorrect charges comedy's a dance just keep on running and officials just last america. priorities usa action is refusing to pull the ad from the air. will years for george zimmerman said they will seek a standard ground hearing for the neighborhood watch volunteer charged in the death of an unarmed florida teenager trayvon martin in florida. a statement posted on the web site for zimmerman's legal team says evidence released by prosecutors shows clear support for a strong claim of self- defense. such a hearing could lead to the dismissal of charges against mr. zimmerman. stand your ground laws allow people to use deadly force rather than retreat if they
believe their lives are endangered. 25 states currently have some version of the law. the american constitutional society and the georgia association of black women attorneys close to a panel discussion on this subject in july. you can watch it at 11:00 a.m. eastern time on c-span. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> denied look for our interview with andrew. >> i had no idea about the experiences of many people who were my predecessors, diplomats and berlin. despite all the time i spent in germany, i have not spent a lot of time and thinking about what it would have been like to been a correspondent in the 1920's and 1930's and how i would have operated, what i would have noticed or not noticed, much less how i would have acted. >> that's tonight at 8:00 on c- span.
>> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest is bill voss, president and ceo of the flight safety foundation, his first time on the program. thanks for joining us. guest: glad to be here. host: not far from here at reagan national airport recently there was a near miss of several planes. i remind us what happened and then answer whether fliers should be concerned for their safety? guest: what happened at reagan national was a situation where it is a fairly tightly constrained airport, there's only one major runway that they used for most of the traffic and they were taking off to the north. there was a need to land a few airplanes to the south because there were thunderstorms getting in the way. there was a miscommunication between the tower and the people who work in the surrounding airspace. as a result of a little
miscommunication and confusion, they ended up with an aircraft being turned in to land at the airport to the south while there were still departing airplanes to the north. immediate action was taken by controllers that took a lot of the risk out of the situation, but they still ended up with something less than what you would expect to see in terms of separation. host: but it is scary. it makes coaxed think. how often does this happen? -- it makes it folks thik. -- think. guest: it is a complicated system and sometimes you go against it. it was a pretty good mistake in this case. the safety and eminent danger
was probably overstated more than a little in the coverage. these airplanes were never actually pointed at each other and there was never much of a chance they could actually hit, but it was an embarrassing missteps. host: what should viewers know about flight safety and recent advances? guest: greg the most amazing thing is to realize that it is a tremendous success story in human history. aviation is not automatically a safe. you are doing things that are not natural, flying people in frigid environments in different places around a world. but we have gotten good at it, because we have learned how to overcome human failings. to get a perspective, we are now looking globally. this includes africa, indonesia, you name it. you step on a commercial airliner, your ides of having a safe flight are better than one in 4 million last year. your chances are two thirds that you would walk away from an
accident. it is stunningly safe. it has been done because we have gotten very good at understanding how human beings make mistakes and rather than to assume human beings will never make a mistake, we find ways to put protections in to catch the mistakes before they become serious. host: phone numbers are on the bottom of the screen for our guests. when did the foundation first come into existence? guest: >> right after world world war ii in 1947. it was the brainchild of a lot of the giants in the industry including charles lindbergh, all right, and all those folks back in the day. host: our guest is a qualified of a control operator and worked at the faa 23 years. i want to remind viewers of how many airports and how many folks are flying in this country currently. in 2010, there were close to
20,000 airports all round the united states -- that is a lot of folks. what is the role of the faa when it comes to safety? guest: the faa is a responsible for the oversight of thei industry oft lays out the regulatory framework, sets up the rules, and it works very closely with industry to make sure they are doing the right things internally. the real safety is done within the airlines themselves. the boots on the ground control and operations, those are the ones most accountable for the safety of an operation. but the faa. said faa frame work host: american airlines this week was tagged.
guest: the faa has been taking a very tough stance. there are making sure they are communicating in a no-nonsense posture towards a lot of airlines. these are not necessarily things that caused an immediate threat to passengers, but they are certainly something that the faa does not want to slide by and they're sending clear messages with their aggressive enforcement posture. host: the inspector general over transportation put out a report on controlling errors in july. how does the program worked? is it an amnesty program? guest: yes, this is difficult for people. it's counterintuitive. the fact is we figured out a long time ago in the aviation industry that what you want to
know is ever mistake that's made out there and understand how to make it safe, how to fix it. to do that you cannot just fire everybody who ever makes a mistake, because you run out of people. when you have a demanding job, mistakes happen. the faa has adopted a policy that is the best practice where you don't necessarily get punished if you do an innocent mistake. if you make a willful mistake, that's a different question. it's a rigorous process. the challenge is it was successful. that means you get a lot more reports, things that used to be hidden. when i was a young controller before the reagan strike in 1982, the only mistakes reported were the ones you cannot hide. now you have a situation where somebody makes a mistake, they feel safe enough to report it, which is wonderful.
now people are going, is this because the reporting system changed or do we actually have a problem? that's part of what the reports, indicating. host: what is your current biggest challenge? guest: >> we work all around the world, not just in the u.s. biggest challenges over the next 20 years will be in the explosive growth, much of which will not occur in the u.s. and europe, but elsewhere in the world and that could affect u.s. travelers. we are looking at explosive growth in the order of 20% in some places like southeast asia and indonesia specifically. looking at explosive growth in china and a dramatic shortfall of qualified personnel to support that growth. we know that is a difficult combination in any case it. host: lansing, michigan, curtis is on our independent line. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. my question is dealing with the
r.s. signal for the airlines versus the cable industry. how vigorous are you checking out the signal which would affect air traffic controllers? guest: the signals that are used, the radiofrequency spectrum that is used for air traffic control, is guarded very aggressively by international organizations. that has been well protected, but there's a large band of spectrum that is in great demand. part of the modernization of the system that is going on the world will move it to a new digital baseline that will make some of that spectrum available. right now there's no one pulling spectrum away from airlines that could affect safety. host: now to a republican on the line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i wonder if you could speak to
the current situation of the economics of the airline industry. you touched on personnel and shortages. i am not completely up on things. i understand there is higher time requirements for the first officers. the feasibility of how they're going to fill that and how they will go on with employment and cost of travel and pay to people at the regionals. i can take my answer off the air. guest: thank you. you are touching on some key points. this is a cyclical industry and it's tough on the people within the industry because of the feast and famine and lack of security associated with it. the fact is the u.s. is looking at a fairly modest. of growth, but there is still a challenge of providing enough
talented flight crews within that growth. there's been a great deal of concern in the industry and there's been a reaction to a crash that really raised the entry-level for pilots operating in commuter airlines, which looks like a good thing on the surface, but there's long- term implications. there's a lot of concern that seems to be coming to fruition that will discourage people from entering the industry and becoming a pilot because it's not nearly as an attractive job as it was in the 1970's. this may exacerbate the situation and may cause young people with 700 hours or 800 hours that are talented that just spent a lot of money in college going through the program to go to uae or china where they are in hot demand and can get better money. but the long-term worry and we have to pay attention. we are not immune from the shortage. host: we are talking about the
faa and flight safety. our guest will be with us 20 more minutes. he is president and ceo of the flight safety foundation. here are the numbers to call -- i want to let you know, if you are interested in these type of issues, on c-span 2, we are doing the second day of live coverage of reform by the air line pilots association. they have been talking about security issues, technology issues, the rules for pilots in the sky in terms of how many hours, the fatigue issue, the potential for pilotless planes, all kinds of issues. you'll see that the rest of the day on c-span 2. you can watch yesterday's session online anytime you would like. we have a call from winter park, florida, celia.
are you there? caller: yes, can you hear me? i really appreciate c-span. i am wondering what is being done to decrease the second and third degree outsourcing as stated in the book written by a very reputable author whose name i cannot think of offhand? guest: your question get to the issue of outsourcing. i cannot say there are steps to limit to the outsourcing, but there are legitimate efforts trying to mitigate any safety concerns. -- ciated with it a concerns associated with it. t is the airline's'
responsibility to accept responsibility for how the outsource supply functions. there's no way that the airline would not have the responsibility for running a safe operation. across the world and at the faa there have been many efforts to make sure accountability. remains accountability this is a highly regulated industry. there are efforts to regulate further and limit what people can do economically. but there's no regulation to make sure people are responsible for the outcomes to make sure safety is assureensured. host: they're asking you to discuss the dynamic between the ntsb making safety recommendations and the faa choosing whether to implement them. guest: i will tell you some insight washington to about this. it's a little different than people imagine. the faa is a regulatory agency.
it is responsible to do extensive cost-benefit analysis on every regulation that's done. ntsb is an investigative body that is independent from the faa entirely. they write recommendations based on the investigations and accidents they see. the dynamic that is difficult is the ntsb has no responsibility to cost-benefit recommendations. it can simply say this act would have reduced the risk of this accident. now you throw the ball to the faa, who is often accused of being unresponsive. what really goes on is the of a cannot make the business case. that is what really holds things up. we are in an interesting situation. there has been virtually very few fatalities in the last decade in the u.s. in order to get regulation to improve aviation safety, the faa gets it $6.4 million credit for
every life they save. there are no lives to justify the cost of implementing morals. so we have a lot of pressure on the faa to implement more rules, but we don't have a lot of regulatory authority left. so you get a silly drama where the faa goes up to the hill and gets beaten for being unresponsive, get everybody knows their hands are tied. it's an interesting dynamic of how safe is safe enough. host: a little about money and the faa -- is that enough money?
guest: it's a lot of money. there is interesting balancing act going on. the faa has had a lot of trouble trying to modernize its systems. that's partly because it's the biggest air traffic control sservice provider in the world. no one is even close. the planning of trying to redo such a vast infrastructure is tough. a lot of times the faa has decide whether to fix the leaky roof or put in a new computer. a lot of times the leaky roof wins. it might be a lot of money, on the edge. it is a difficult task they have to face. host: now on the republican line from fort washington, wisconsin, sean. good morning. caller: good morning.
the hour requirements, there's talk about having the hours reduced for college graduates than have an aviation degree. is that still going through? guest: that is being talked about. there is a pretty significant debate on what are the right number of flight hours to have for a pilot to enter the airline business. in some levels, debate in the number of hours is not very constructive. it's a poor indicator of how a pilot will perform. pilots with 200 hours have been shot off the end of aircraft carriers going to war with weapons systems. they do pretty good. it's also quality and not just quantity. on reducing hours for people to
go through university training, you go through a very structured course, like what you have in the military to get a certificate, as opposed to a hock system like i did. if you have a structured, polished environment, they are arguing maybe that makes up for some of the hourly requirements. that is still being considered. from our perspective, we don't see a strong correlation between hours and performance. we would like to see better measures of how people do. host: miami, florida on the line. caller: great program. i'm a flight safety professional with a regional airline, one of the majors. i twice. have to work as scheduled as a approximatelyant 12 hours.
-- i have to work a schedule as a flight attendant approximately 12 hours, twice a week. i make a lot of mistakes, frankly. as people are boarding and exiting.-- at the 11th hour, i make a lot of mistakes. what is the faa doing to address fatigue for flight attendants? why are we not afforded the same amount of courtesy at the security gates as the pilots? guest: i cannot comment on the professional courtesy. i'm a frequent flyer and i don't get any either. i don't know exactly what the faa may have in mind for regulations regarding duty time for flight attendants. i will tell you the faa has
really stepped up and acknowledge that that it had to reduce some old rules that were completely irrelevant -- redo some old rules. one of the problems that is haunting is let's say they wish to do a regulation that says we need to improve doody time, limitations for people in the back, they will get challenged by omb. -- duty time. then omb will ask them how many lives will this save? it's very hard to do this without being able to point to how many lives will be saved. host: the amnesty program that we spoke of earlier, there is a washington post write-e-up --
do you expect changes in this program? guest: i do. this is not the first program. programs like this have been implemented all over the world. they go through a period of time that's very difficult. you have to develop a process where there are people with conflicting interests. maybe the regulator, the operator, the union sits in the room and get these reports and it says, are these legitimate errors or is this somebody doing something improper to try to cover themselves? those little groups don't automatically turn into flawless jurists on the first day out of the box it. it takes awhile for those to mature. you will see some maturing and you'll see some emphasis on balance. we know the direction they are headed is right. the report acknowledges they're headed in the right direction. the key is they will have to step it up and make sure they
are being fair and equitable and it's not just to get out of jail card. host: explain to the viewers how the current system works, the current grid for the controllers, and then lead us to the future, because there's nextgen. guest: it has drawn a lot of attention. the system today, they had implemented a lot of changes. air transport systems are doing pretty well. the system today belies a great deal on eyeball, if you are in the tower. it belies a lot on paper notes. you are writing notes appear on pieces of paper still in some of these situations. then you are observing on radar, ground-based stations, and so on. the new systems are trying to move to will be a bit different. a lot more of the control will be put into the cockpit. you will be using the computers
and airplanes, very capable. instead of being given in to buy into instructions, if they will be given broad trajectory instructions, so there will not be as much chatting back and forth. there will be more separation responsibilities uploaded into the aircraft as opposed to on the ground. it will be a more sensibly distributed system. host: the next-generation is not cheap. how much money to fully upgrade the system and what problems are there? guest: i have lost track of the total numbers. it is a little bit of a misnomer. if you try to label the program as part of being nextgen, part of a bill is fixing leaky roof to make sure the computer does not get wet, so the distinctions are political. this is a big, long-term investment and tried to get to this. it's difficult, because the faa is so big.
we have to transition a lot of programs. one thing that's very hard is you run into a wall of political will. you say, great, i have the new program, i can consolidate all these people and jobs into a new location, and then congress as you are not moving my people out of my district. or you have the gall to say i'm going to move where an aircraft flies into new york and you have thousands of signatures on petitions saying you're not going to move an airplane over my house. so in as tough dimensions. some are technical and others political. host: greg is on a line from tucson, arizona. caller: i was wondering, as a small ga pilot, pretty innovative products could make flying safer for general aviation. but to get certified that products of the same caliber, it's much more expensive and it is really killing ga as far as trying to get certified products.
what are you doing to streamline the certification process that might bring some innovative products to market at an affordable price and helped ga pilot becomes safer? guest: i am also a mechanic and a pilot. so i have done all those things and i grew up in ga. the pencil question is a big one. what does it cost for the certified? i have to give the faa credit. what thrilled me is the approach the faa has taken towards the ipad. it's being used broadly right now across the industry, revolutionizing the airline industry. instead of walking down the terminal with a big bag of books, and now you are walking down with an ipad that updates itself as you walk through the terminal. this has turned the industry on its head. the fact that the faa has been able to take a consumer device
like that and qualify it for rigorous use in the cockpit gives me reason to believe there is hope. the need to make sure some of that trickle-down for you. there are some big things that are possible and we have seen some of them. host: a few more phone calls it. we're talking about the faa and flight safety. just a reminder on our numbers -- flightsafety.org is the web site. bill voss is president and ceo. guest: you will find a lot of materials talked about the overall industry and really about best practices. it is targeted towards aviation professionals, people who have a deep interest in the industry. we have a publication that goes out and several languages every
month. in-depth analyses of things like fatigue, various human factors issues, technical issues that are merging. host: how are you funded? guest: 1000 members and meetings that. we are rigorously independent, because we have and of members from all over the world that we don't have to worry about what we say. we can play it right down the middle. host: there's of your that wants to know how well protected the airport infrastructure is, regarding cybersecurity threats and how susceptible the system might be. guest: it is a fascinating subject, cybersecurity. there's a lot of attention being paid to that. clearly, it is a legitimate threat. on the ground side of the infrastructure, there's a strong focus on it. there's a lot of attention being paid to the issue of is it possible to compromise gps
signals because those are fairly weak signals. a lot of contingency plans being made around those. it is something that is being well noted by the people building the systems, but they're not telling us the secrets on how they are protecting us. host: what are some other advances coming down the line on security either currently or in the next decade? on thewe're not so much security side, but the entire system is making improvements in the sand bounds on the security and the set-aside. the ability to communicate with the system is getting better. you are able to pass information to the aircraft's via satellite. it was only a few years ago we had the air france 447 accident where it disappeared over the land decant nobody could understand a crash and spent two years trying to find it it. the new technology makes those type of things a lot more difficult to happen. it makes it more possible to
track aircraft more accurately and all that adds to safety and security. host: there's one story about senator inhofe regarding a pilots bill of rights. the house passed the bill recently. the primary effect of the bill would give pilots the right to appeal to the ntsb. tell us about the legislation. guest: there's a lot of sensitive legal issues. around being issues. can i's the question of confessed to my problems without being subjected to undue punishment or harshness? a lot of that is valid. there's also concerns in many places around the world, if the information is reported and then there's an accident occurring, will i be taken to court and sued or thrown in prison, in
many parts of the world, for these actions? so this is a fairly pleasant surprise because we did not see that coming. host: scott is. a is scott is a republican. caller: i am. a am. i fly my own private airplane to small airports and controlled airports as well. these little airports, it seems all of them are not very busy these days. how do they stay financed? are they paid for landings? guest: interesting question. a lot of low activity airports are the recipients of quite a bit of grant money from federal, state, and local governments. there has been a significant
decline in general aviation operations. the economy is certainly taking its toll on small aircraft. you have a lot of infrastructure out there that is not being heavily used. host: our guest is president and ceo of the flight safety foundation. thanks a lot for your time and your insight into the industry. guest: my pleasure. host: thanks for all of your calls. washington journal starts at 7:00 eastern time every day. i will take you to the national press club now for introduction being made for the head of the consumer product safety commission. we will hear from inez tenenbaum about the safety of consumer products in the usa. to talk about advancements and the future of keeping as high standard as possible. host: [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> she stated that she believed >> she stated that she believed